Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In view of the legislative intent that CPLR article 9 be liberally interpreted and the general policy favoring the maintenance of class actions (see, Brandon v. Chefetz, 106 A.D.2d 162, 168; Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 A.D.2d 83, 91), we conclude that the Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the subject action to be maintained as a class action (see, Matter of Froehlich v. Toia, 71 A.D.2d 824, lv denied 48 N.Y.2d 611). In light of the facts that the class as defined includes former shareholders who have since resold their apartments and no longer retain a vote in corporate affairs and that the sponsoring defendants continue to retain a substantial interest in the plaintiff cooperative apartment corporation, the proposed class action is superior to other available methods, such as an action solely by the plaintiff corporation, for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy (CPLR 901 [a] [5]). Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.